Gakuba v. Otey

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

May 4, 2018

PETER GAKUBA, Plaintiff,v.KRISTIE OTEY, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STACI
M. YANDLE United States District Judge

Plaintiff
Peter Gakuba, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), filed this
lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his
constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated
at Robinson Correctional Center (“Robinson”).

Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges he was injured during court-ordered medical
testing for sexually transmitted diseases
(“STD”). After an initial screening of
Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A,
Plaintiff was allowed to proceed on the following counts:

Count 1 - Eighth Amendment excessive force
claim against Nurse Jane Doe #2 for using a swab test instead
of a urine test on Plaintiff on September 15, 2015.

Count 2 - Eighth Amendment claim against
Nurse Jane Doe #1 for failing to intervene and stop Nurse
Jane Doe #2 from using a swab test instead of a urine test on
September 15, 2015.

Count 7 - Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference to medical needs claim against Nurses Jane Doe
##1-4, Nurse Otey (Nurse Jane Doe #5), Lieutenant Brookhart,
Major Rains, Major Erickson, and John Does ##1-2 for
responding to Plaintiff's requests for medical treatment
by recommending that he “drink plenty of water”
or by denying the request.

Currently
before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Count 7 against
Defendants Erickson, Rains, and Brookhart (Doc. 24), for
failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants' Motion.

Factual
Background

In his
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on September 15, 2015, he
was awakened and ordered to go to Robinson's health care
unit (“HCU”) for court-ordered STD testing (Doc.
1 at 5). There, he met with two Nurse Practitioners
(“Jane Doe ##1-2”) who drew his blood
(Id.). Nurse Doe #2 then inserted a long cotton swab
into Gakuba's penis, causing him intense pain
(Id.). He strenuously objected to the procedure and
insisted that a urine sample could have been used in lieu of
a swab. (Id.). Because Nurse Doe #2 chose the more
invasive procedure, Gakuba suffered from pain, burning and
stinging in his urethra that persisted long after the
procedure was completed (Id.).

Gakuba
met with Lieutenant Brookhart and Major Rains later the same
morning (Id.). He complained of a suspected
perforation to his urethra (Id.). They instructed
him to return immediately to the HCU for treatment
(Id.). When he did, Gakuba was seen by two unknown
nurses (“Jane Doe ##3- 4”) and a third nurse
(“Jane Doe #5”) who he also refers to as
“Nurse Kristie Otey” (Id.). Nurse Doe #3
assured Gakuba that bloody urine and acute burning were
normal (Id.). She recommended that he drink plenty
of water (Id.). He did not agree with this
recommendation (Id.). He insisted that the procedure
resulted in a perforation or laceration of his urethra and
that the recommendation to drink more water-like the
procedure itself-was “wrong” (Id.).

Gakuba
met with Lieutenant Brookhart again in October and/or
November 2015 and pleaded for treatment (Id.).
During the meeting, Gakuba produced a Ziploc bag full of
bloody tissue that he had saved (Id.). Lieutenant
Brookhart told Gakuba that DNA evidence must be preserved in
a dry paper envelope (Id.). The officer nevertheless
sent him back to the HCU for further treatment
(Id.).

In the
HCU, Gakuba was seen by Major Erickson and Nurse John Doe #1
(Id.). They conducted an external examination of his
penis (Id.). Nurse Jane Doe #6 stood observing
(Id.). Gakuba insisted that he needed an immediate
referral to an urologist for treatment of a suspected
perforation or laceration to his urethra (Id.). He
was never referred to a specialist (Id.).

Discussion

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for
dismissal if a Complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. In considering a motion to dismiss,
the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded allegations in the
Complaint and draws all possible inferences in favor of the
plaintiff. See Killingsworth v. HSBC Bank Nevada,
N.A., 507 F.3d 614, 618 (7th Cir. 2007) (quotations
omitted). A plaintiff need not set out all relevant facts or
recite the law in his or her Complaint; however, the
plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement that shows
that he or she is entitled to relief. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Thus, a Complaint will not be dismissed if
it &ldquo;contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to &lsquo;state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.&#39;&rdquo; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 679 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Additionally,
&ldquo;[a]llegations of a pro se Complaint are held
‘to less ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.